Fast Track to Gun Control?

“‘Immigration reform will add over 8,000,000 anti-gun voters to the voting rolls,’ Gun Owners of America warned its members and supporters in a January 24 alert.” — The Examiner, January 29, 2014

For months, as you know, GOA has been battling against the anti-gun immigration amnesty bill, which would add 8,000,000 anti-gun voters to the voting rolls.

The political left has attacked Gun Owners of America for rallying gun owners to oppose the anti-gun amnesty legislation. One liberal website even (mockingly) characterized our view as saying that “immigrants must suffer because of their supposed political views.”

Of course, that’s not what we’re saying, but then again, we wouldn’t expect anti-gun liberals to understand.

There were even some conservatives who had misgivings. For example, one pro-gun author confessed that he initially “harbored some doubts” about GOA’s position and even argued that immigration overhaul could actually help gun ownership in the U.S.

But after reading our alerts, he admitted that such a rosy scenario was “probably very wishful thinking” on his part, especially considering the 2013 “Pew poll indicating an electoral bonanza for Democrats — and therefore for ‘gun control’ — should illegal aliens gain the right to vote.”

GOA is very thankful for thoughtful journalists like the one above who took the time to really research the issue — and grateful for many gun owners like yourself who have taken action on our alerts.

The result has been an intense outpouring of “political heat” on politicians in Washington (especially Republicans).

A couple of weeks ago, GOA asked you to contact your Republican Congressman, prior to their retreat, to let them know that their grassroots base (that is, gun owners) do not support anything that resembles amnesty. Other groups have joined the chorus as well.

Since then, media reports indicated that the phones rang off the hook on Capitol Hill — especially in Speaker Boehner’s office.

All of this culminated in newspaper headlines around the country reporting, on Friday, that the anti-gun amnesty bill was dead and we had won:

* “Hope dims for immigration bill,” trumpeted USA Today.

* “Boehner Doubts Immigration Bill Will Pass in 2014,” said the New York Times.

* “Immigration Overhaul Stalls,” said the front-page headline of the Wall Street Journal.

For us to have reached this point was an enormous victory for your activism. And GOA is grateful for all you who made calls and helped tie up the phone lines on Capitol Hill opposing this bill.

But the battle is clearly not over, for buried deep in the articles was a more nuanced story. The Journal said that a pro-immigration leader “was told by congressional aides to ‘take a deep breath’ and that ‘the wheels continue to turn.'”

Thus, there is still some degree of danger that Speaker John Boehner could push the anti-gun bill after primary filing season had closed — perhaps in May, June or July.

This would not be the first time that we have seen defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. In fact, you might remember our most recent alert over the weekend which explained how a Senate committee ambushed pro-gun Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) in an attempt to defeat his language repealing the Post Office gun ban.

[GOA has posted an update here which further explains how players behind the scenes — like Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) — worked overtime to ambush Rand Paul and sack his pro-gun agenda.]

So one might wonder: Is this battle over anti-gun amnesty just another political ambush, similar to the one gun owners saw play out in the battle to repeal the post office gun ban?

Well, consider the multiple levels of perfidy that are at play.

Fast Track to Gun Control?

Many of the same business interests that support immigration — for short-term “balance sheet” motives — also support a bill to allow Barack Obama to write virtually any multilateral trade treaties he wants — with little or no ability to stop them when we “find out what’s in them.”

The bill is called “fast track.” The way it would work is that Obama could negotiate treaties, and, once they were negotiated, they would have to be considered under the Senate rules … they could not be filibustered … they would be approved by a simple majority … and they would be unamendable.

Obviously, if the Obama treaties contained provisions limiting the import and export of guns, we would not have the votes to do anything about it, if “fast track” were in place.

Why is this relevant?

MSNBC and the New York Times have floated a “deal” to pass the anti-gun immigration bill. Obama would “give” Republicans “fast track” — because many in the GOP business interests support “fast track” and many Democrats oppose it. In exchange, Republicans would “give” Obama immigration amnesty.

Obviously, some Washington-centered business interests would view this as a win-win.

For gun owners, it would be a lose-lose. There would be 8,000,000 new anti-gun voters, and California-style gun control would be inevitable. On the other hand, newly drafted Obama anti-gun treaties, which could resemble the UN Arms Trade Treaty, would be almost impossible to stop.

Think Obama is so honorable that he would not use treaties to ban guns? Does anyone think that?

ACTION: For now, let’s receive our apparent victory graciously — knowing that we’re going to have to be continually vigilant to make sure the amnesty bill doesn’t raise its ugly head again. So urge your Representatives to remain firm in opposing anti-gun amnesty for the rest of this congressional session. So Take Action and urge your Representatives to remain firm in opposing anti-gun amnesty for the rest of this congressional session.

One Response to “Fast Track to Gun Control?”

In a surprise ambush, Democrats on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously voted to defeat a Rand Paul amendment to allow guns in post offices.

But Senator Paul was relentless in trying to get his language adopted. And as a result, a minor (anemic) improvement was later added as a sop to his persistence.

Now, we want to give you the “rest of the story” because it involves your Senator Mark Begich. But in doing so, realize that we are about to take you on what may, at times, seem like a circuitous journey through the most vile and contemptible inner workings of Washington, D.C.

We start with the February 6 defeat of the Rand Paul amendment to lift the Postal Service’s ban on guns. Had we succeeded in passing the Paul amendment, we could have brought to an end the series of massacres that have occurred in postal “gun free zones.” Instead, our pro-gun amendment was defeated in the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee by a party-line vote of 9-6.

Nine days earlier, the Paul amendment seemed on the verge of victory. But Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) and Ranking Republican Tom Coburn (R-OK) raised “red herring” issues, openly wondering what would be the effect of Paul’s pro-gun language on post offices which were located in shopping malls or court houses.

This was a phony issue. A post office is a post office is a post office. Shopping malls and court houses are not post offices. But Rand Paul worked in good faith, with our drafting help, to satisfy Begich’s phony complaints.

Well, it turned out something else was happening. In the nine days that Paul was negotiating in good faith, Begich was using the time to organize an ambush.

When the committee came back, Committee Chairman Tom Carper sprung a “poison pill” amendment to the Paul amendment which, rather than lifting the gun ban, would merely “study” it. Because the Carper amendment was an amendment to the Paul amendment, the committee would never be required to vote on the Paul amendment at all.

Then, when Paul tried to get a separate up-and-down vote on his amendment, Chairman Carper declared it procedurally out of order.

The persistent Paul merely offered his amendment (to end the postal gun ban) to the next amendment the committee considered. This time, the two-timing Begich suddenly pulled out a new “alternative” to Paul’s amendment. The Begich amendment would allow guns in post office parking lots, but only by some concealed carry holders. It wouldn’t have applied to most gun owners who were allowed to carry in Begich’s home state of Alaska.

The Bloomberg-backed Moms Demand Action praised Senator Begich and other Democrats on the committee right after the Paul amendment was defeated, and they declared a victory for their side:

“We are pleased the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs rejected [the Paul amendment] today that would have allowed concealed, loaded guns to be carried in post offices.”

Bottom line: Mark Begich voted to help kill the pro-gun Paul amendment in committee, and then the Bloomberg minions celebrated Begich’s vote as a victory for their side.

Now that Begich is doing the bidding of New York interests, will Bloomberg money start filling Begich’s campaign coffers to help him in his tough upcoming race for reelection? We’ll have to wait and see.

ACTION: Please tell Mark Begich that you don’t appreciate him stabbing gun owners in the back. You can cut-n-paste the text below into his webform here. Make sure to select the topic “Second Amendment Issues.”

NOTE: Click here to see Senator Mark Begich’s anti-gun votes in 2013.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator Begich:

On February 6, in the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, you voted to defeat a Rand Paul amendment to allow guns in post offices.

The Bloomberg-backed Moms Demand Action issued a press release right after this amendment was defeated and praised the position you took.

The Bloomberg minions said they were “pleased” that Senators like you had voted to reject the Paul language which “would have allowed concealed, loaded guns to be carried in post offices.”

Yes, I know that you voted to “study” the issue. And, yes, I know that you voted for anemic language to allow some concealed carry. But this language only applies in postal parking lots and only for some gun owners.

Law-enforcement certainly doesn’t support your position. According to a PoliceOne.com survey, 90 percent of officers support concealed carry and 80 percent of them believe that legally-armed citizens would have “reduced the number of casualties in recent mass shootings.”